Best WW2 Fighter Pilot Poll Round 2

[P1234567890]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

But than again I've met a lot of so-called professional historians who never served in the military and never flew an airplane, so how do they really specialize in aerial combat?

This is an interesting point, which is why I am citing Galland as an authority. But in defense of the historians, they've actually done the research. They're aware of a lot more facts than anyone here is aware of. If you write a Ph.D. thesis on WWII aviation history, you're bound to pick up a lot of deep insights along the way.

[P1234567890]

Originally Posted by Njaco

I don't see how you can make that assumption. This poll is part 2 of another poll. Those listed here were the top voted. Unless someone stated in the thread who they voted for, how would anyone tell?

If you click on the numbers in the poll, you can see exactly who people voted for. Same with the first part of the poll. Plus you can read people's discussions and reasoning in the threads.

Go check it out; there's a correlation between the nationality of the voter and the nationality of the pilots.

By the way, go to the first round poll and see who voted for who. Many of the questionable pilots who made it through to the second round have people voting for them who have like zero posts on this discussion board. Also, if you look at the people voting for Baer in the second round, you'll see that almost all of the really serious members of this forum are voting for him. I think that says something.

[pbfoot]

Well sometimes the ones that are amongst the best recieve no attention and if nothing else I learn , you can take all the math in the world and it can't possibly come anywhere close to helping you make a decision . I can name 30 variables in combat flying now if you can come up with a formula to account for all the variables you would be working at Edwards but your not so your opinion means no more then anyone elses

[buzzard]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

But than again I've met a lot of so-called professional historians who never served in the military and never flew an airplane, so how do they really specialize in aerial combat?

John Keegan admits to the validity of this point in the 'Face of Battle'. He also makes a convincing argument that such experience is not a priori proof of competence as a historian. Instead, he argues that by careful weighing of the testimony and evidence of the players and events, a careful historian can combine the evidence so as to give a broader and more balanced perspective of events than can any single individual, regardless of of personal experience. With, of course, the caveat that important factors in the event may have missed his eye. All histories are inevitably incomplete (and have at least a degree of bias), but this does not render them worthless, it simply demands that they be regarded with a healthy degree of skepticism. That's what cross-referencing is for.

Few of us have had the abilities or opportunities afforded people like Capt. Eric Brown, but this doesn't necessarily mean that because a non-pilot disagrees with one of his aircraft assessments, he is automatically in error. Brown has his biases also, and is the first to admit it. So, we can compare his assessments with those of other experienced pilots, take into consideration the varying circumstances under which the flights were made, and come to a reasonable conclusion as to whom is more likely correct. The Revealed Truth is only found in holy books, not histories...

From what I've read here, you're an experienced aviator with a lot of time in the aerospace industry, but while the gaps in your knowledge may be smaller than most of us, they still exist. I'm not a licensed pilot, but I've spent a fair amount of time at the controls of small prop planes, and have some understanding of the nature of flying. Neither of us, however can ever have more than a rudimentary idea of what is was actually like to fly and fight on the Eastern Front. Nor can Eric Brown...

Non-pilots and civilians can, with care, arrive at credible conclusions about military aviation history.

JL

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by P1234567890

If you click on the numbers in the poll, you can see exactly who people voted for. Same with the first part of the poll. Plus you can read people's discussions and reasoning in the threads.

Go check it out; there's a correlation between the nationality of the voter and the nationality of the pilots.

By the way, go to the first round poll and see who voted for who. Many of the questionable pilots who made it through to the second round have people voting for them who have like zero posts on this discussion board. Also, if you look at the people voting for Baer in the second round, you'll see that almost all of the really serious members of this forum are voting for him. I think that says something.

Your point being? Maybe to them they were the best pilot. Does that make them wrong.

No because you can not prove it otherwise...

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by P1234567890

Go check it out; there's a correlation between the nationality of the voter and the nationality of the pilots.

Oh, not that discussion again...

[Kruska]

Hello P1234567890

By the way, it seems like I'm just agreeing with what the professional 
military historians have to say. If there's anyone here who believes that the best pilot of the war wasn't German AND can cite a reputable military historian specializing in WWII air combat (a.k.a. a real expert) who agrees, then I'd love to hear about it.

Military associated historians usually only account for topics of well known historical events or persons involved with a historically known “outstanding” participation; Otherwise who would buy their books and let them make $$$.
As such they usually reflect as in this poll (best, outstanding pilot) on to those that are “worth mentioning” ($$$).
In your opinion only a German Pilot could be among the best, because you might not have ever considered or heard about those pilots that are not public action Hero’s.

Hartmann’s frontline flying experience rests solely on the shoulders of the Bf109 (plus derivates) as for my uncle he has 2 years more of flying experience then Hartmann and he flew, Bf110, Bf109, Bf108, Fw190-A, Fw190D-9, Fw190D-12 or Ta152 (on the latter I am not 100% sure). In the GAF he flew F-84, and F104G’s.

He has/had far more flying hours then Hartmann and he never got shot down, but he never shot down an a/c (according to his say) therefore = Ich war Flieger – kein Killer.

Now I would never exclude the chance that there are respective opposites to my uncle in other countries which would refrain me from saying that only German pilots can be amongst the best.

The present poll is based on Pilots that according to other forum members opinion/believes are supposed to be amongst the best, now taking the above into account why shouldn’t a non German pilot be amongst them or even the best? just because off less Kills?

I for one can cite Galland, who stated that Marseille was the best fighter pilot of the war.

B.T.W. my uncle (just his opinion) stated that the most overrated LW Pilot was Galland.

Personally I voted for Baer due to some of the above stated, but I might just as well be wrong.

Regards
Kruska

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by buzzard

From what I've read here, you're an experienced aviator with a lot of time in the aerospace industry, but while the gaps in your knowledge may be smaller than most of us, they still exist. I'm not a licensed pilot, but I've spent a fair amount of time at the controls of small prop planes, and have some understanding of the nature of flying. Neither of us, however can ever have more than a rudimentary idea of what is was actually like to fly and fight on the Eastern Front. Nor can Eric Brown...

You don't have to be a Brown or test pilot - again I've met and read articles written by professional historians and they didn't even have a grasp in understanding how the aircraft they were writing about worked!

Originally Posted by buzzard

Non-pilots and civilians can, with care, arrive at credible conclusions about military aviation history.

Yes they can but they better do their homework because there are some out there who could poke holes in some of their conclusions....

[P1234567890]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

Well sometimes the ones that are amongst the best recieve no attention and if nothing else I learn , you can take all the math in the world and it can't possibly come anywhere close to helping you make a decision .

There are way more examples of where math actually *does* help you make decisions. That's sort of the point of getting an education.

Originally Posted by pbfoot

I can name 30 variables in combat flying now if you can come up with a formula to account for all the variables you would be working at Edwards

I explained my method for comparing pilots across multiple categories in round 1 of this poll, and it is perfectly sound. The formula is for comparing pilots, and not for simulating air combat, so your point is not valid. As for working at Edwards, I'm sure they could find some use for my abilities, but my career plans lie somewhere else.

Originally Posted by pbfoot

but your not so your opinion means no more then anyone elses

Except that I'm the only one here who has suggested anything remotely resembling an objective, mathematical way of comparing pilots.

[P1234567890]

Originally Posted by buzzard

Non-pilots and civilians can, with care, arrive at credible conclusions about military aviation history.

Absolutely. Otherwise almost all of history would be useless. Not many historians alive today experienced political life in ancient Rome or fought on a battlefield against Napoleon. Academia really is worth something.

That being said, of course the opinions of other pilots who were there are worth a lot as well. Galland said that Marseille was the greatest pilot of the war, and that means something coming from him.

And history regards the top German pilots as being the best pilots of the war. Again, that means something.

We can't just go and ignore what the experts have to say.

[Njaco]

It still all comes down to opinion, P123. This is not an end all-be all poll to finally decide the question. As stated in the very beginning, its for fun and discussion.

There are numerous ways that a single person can vote for a pilot. I, myself, have never taken the controls of any plane, have never served in the military and just love the history of flight. My post count is nearing 5,000 but if you look its mostly just stupid, dumb posts because I could never have an intelligent discussion about many subjects here, like the attributes of the 109 vs the Meteor - I'd be flamed in a heartbeat. But within those limits, I tried to objectively come to a conclusion about war pilots and voted.

And thanks, I was not aware that you could do that within a poll. Learn something new every day.

And regardless of all the finer points, nationally must be a consideration because it will rear its head. Its natural and no guilt should be passed around.

Mathematical evaluation is but one of the factors, I agree. But one shouldn't base the whole vote upon that single criteria.

[pbfoot]

p183798774747
I believe you have a point of view whereby a little education gives you the feeling you are a little smarter then most, well I think your mom lied to you

[P1234567890]

Originally Posted by Kruska

Military associated historians usually only account for topics of well known historical events or persons involved with a historically known “outstanding” participation; Otherwise who would buy their books and let them make $$$.
As such they usually reflect as in this poll (best, outstanding pilot) on to those that are “worth mentioning” ($$$).

I'm not talking about authors. I'm talking about serious military historians in academia. Every major university has some. These are people who are not motivated so much by money but rather by writing history as objectively as possible. They are tenured and guaranteed their income, regardless of how popular their findings are.

Originally Posted by Kruska

Hartmann’s frontline flying experience rests solely on the shoulders of the Bf109 (plus derivates) as for my uncle he has 2 years more of flying experience then Hartmann and he flew, Bf110, Bf109, Bf108, Fw190-A, Fw190D-9, Fw190D-12 or Ta152 (on the latter I am not 100% sure). In the GAF he flew F-84, and F104G’s.

He has/had far more flying hours then Hartmann and he never got shot down, but he never shot down an a/c (according to his say) therefore = Ich war Flieger – kein Killer.

Now I would never exclude the chance that there are respective opposites to my uncle in other countries which would refrain me from saying that only German pilots can be amongst the best.

I'm sure that your uncle was a fine pilot, but we're talking about combat pilots here... We're talking about killers. If your uncle wasn't a killer, then he's not really in the running, and neither are his opposite numbers among the allies.

Originally Posted by Kruska

The present poll is based on Pilots that according to other forum members opinion/believes are supposed to be amongst the best, now taking the above into account why shouldn’t a non German pilot be amongst them or even the best? just because off less Kills?

No. I am arguing that any reasonable combination of reasonable statistics will yield a comparison model in which the Germans come out on top. They're just so far ahead in so many categories than the allies that it's just not possible that an allied pilot could come out on top if we're being at all objective.

Incidentally, it isn't really the case that 'forum members' voted for the weaker pilots on the polls. Check it out (especially in the first round): Many of the questionable choices up there were voted for by people who have less than three posts here.

Originally Posted by Kruska

Personally I voted for Baer due to some of the above stated, but I might just as well be wrong.

No, Baer is a reasonable candidate. I personally voted for Marseille, but I fully admit that Baer and Hartmann (and Nowotny for that matter) are all reasonable choices, and reasonable people can disagree about which of them is better. In those cases I'll bet that any reasonable comparison model breaks down.

But just because we can't make fine doesn't mean that we can't make coarse distinctions.

[P1234567890]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

p183798774747
I believe you have a point of view whereby a little education gives you the feeling you are a little smarter then most, well I think your mom lied to you

Hey, if you're anti-education, and you don't think that there's any benefit to going to school, then you're welcome to your opinion. I doubt that you believe this, though. I've got no idea how old you are or how many kids you have, but I'll bet that when your kids get old enough, you're going to tell them to go to university, and you're not going to urge them to drop out.

Professional military historians spend their lives doing research. They go through the log books and through as much first-hand information that they can possibly find. If you don't respect that, then you're being unreasonable.

[P1234567890]

Originally Posted by Njaco

It still all comes down to opinion, P123. This is not an end all-be all poll to finally decide the question. As stated in the very beginning, its for fun and discussion.

I for one have learned a lot about some interesting pilots in these threads. And in my defense, I assert that I am helping to stimulate discussion here.

Originally Posted by Njaco

And regardless of all the finer points, nationally must be a consideration because it will rear its head. Its natural and no guilt should be passed around.

Yeah, but it shouldn't. Nationality really is an irrelevant pilot characteristic, and it should be ignored completely. Anyone who is letting it factor into their decisions is making a mistake.

Originally Posted by Njaco

Mathematical evaluation is but one of the factors, I agree. But one shouldn't base the whole vote upon that single criteria.

I'm trying to say that we can use a mathematical model to compare pilots using *ALL* of the criteria which we could possibly come up with.